Post by: Slider on March 11, 2009, 12:03:04 PM
The commission, which sets policy for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), approved purchase of 423 acres of critical mule deer range south of Twisp, adjacent to the Golden Doe unit of WDFW’s Methow Wildlife Area. The acquisition, funded by a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service grant for the appraised value of $2,490,000, will also improve recreational opportunity and access to the wildlife area
Post by: hoytem on March 11, 2009, 12:06:19 PM
Post by: CP on March 11, 2009, 12:12:37 PM
Post by: oneezreiter on March 11, 2009, 12:15:35 PM
Post by: jackelope on March 11, 2009, 12:16:01 PM
I’m having a hard time finding a downside to WDFW buying more land.
X2.
maybe i'm ignorant but are we inventing reasons to complain about the wdfw?
Post by: wastickslinger on March 11, 2009, 12:17:16 PM
I’m having a hard time finding a downside to WDFW buying more land.
Maybe they will close it down to hunting if they find wolves. Call it a wolf habitat.
Post by: hoytem on March 11, 2009, 12:20:06 PM
Post by: oneezreiter on March 11, 2009, 12:20:25 PM
Post by: Slider on March 11, 2009, 12:21:00 PM
I'm having a hard time finding a downside to WDFW buying more land.
X2.
maybe i'm ignorant but are we inventing reasons to complain about the wdfw?
NO!!! But If they are going to purchase land to increase the Wolf population,don't you think we should know about it? Also who is going to take their kids hiking where they know there are WOLVES?!!! :bdid:
Post by: jackelope on March 11, 2009, 12:21:51 PM
I’m having a hard time finding a downside to WDFW buying more land.
Maybe they will close it down to hunting if they find wolves. Call it a wolf habitat.
they could do that anywhere right now if they see fit. they don't need a special small piece of land to do that on.
423 acres is nothing to a pack of wolves.
Post by: jackelope on March 11, 2009, 12:24:11 PM
it wouldn't stop me from taking my kid hiking. i will be carrying, but i usually am when we are hiking anywhere.
Post by: jackelope on March 11, 2009, 12:27:32 PM
it just seems odd to me that the fact that wdfw bought a piece of winter range in twisp(great mule deer country in our state) for mule deer and you guys are finding ways to spin it into a purchase made to increase wolf habitat/population. i don't get it.
it seems like every move anybody makes anymore has an alternate negative motive hidden somewhere in the gray area.
we need hunting season to get here as soon as possible so we have something new to talk about.
Post by: saylean on March 11, 2009, 12:29:55 PM
Post by: hoytem on March 11, 2009, 12:34:52 PM
Post by: MichaelJ on March 11, 2009, 12:44:30 PM
Ok so maybe we're paranoid, but look at Idaho for example. They introduced a few packs and were supposed to maintain them and keep them at an acceptable level. Didn't happen!!Now they are absolutely out of control. I don't want to see the same mistakes made here.
Its not Idahos fault the FEDERAL courts put the wolves back on the endangered species list... Now that they are off that list again and the management of said wolf packs are supposed to be turned over to the State agencies, I think we'll be seeing tags in ID this fall along with a few in WA within 2-3 years. I've talked with Bio's for the WDFW and they want to manage our wolf populations properly, but they can't do it on a short budget with very little knowledge of our actual wolf packs. We're getting a lot better but we still need to report every incident that we see a wolf so we can convince the bios and WDFW that we have met our 'recovery goals' and can start managing them with tags and hunts...
I'm with Jackelope on this one, I think ur all paranoid and are just looking for reasons to crap on the WDFW... Thats just my .02 though...
Michael
Post by: hoytem on March 11, 2009, 12:56:13 PM
Post by: MichaelJ on March 11, 2009, 01:08:03 PM
Michael
Post by: Curly on March 11, 2009, 01:12:45 PM
I also think it is a good thing when WDFW can purchase land. Any land they purchase is more area that we may get to hunt. If it is private land, there is a good chance that it would eventually be developed.
Post by: Colville on March 11, 2009, 01:29:57 PM
Post by: Slider on March 11, 2009, 01:40:12 PM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on March 11, 2009, 01:40:48 PM
I'm confused. Where in the first post of this thread citing the WDFW is there any kind of connection to wolves? If I missed something, please point me in the right direction. It appears that they just bought 432 acres of wintering ground that now can't become 5 to 20 acre home sites. Sounds like a pretty good idea. The loss of winter habitat is probably a bigger problem than all the other management policies we debate every day. This locked up more winter ground from development. And "Fish and Wildlife Service grant for the appraised value of $2,490,000, will also improve recreational opportunity and access to the wildlife area." Doesn't sound like they're trying to limit access or use. I'm at a loss for the downside here.
I'm with you, and jackalope, and michealJ. I think this is good, i don't see any connection to wolves.
Hopefully the WDFW will continue purchasing land in critical areas that is in jeopardy of development.
Post by: jackelope on March 11, 2009, 01:49:25 PM
i know a bunch of land down in the blues i wish the wdfw would buy too for critical
Post by: Slider on March 11, 2009, 02:08:55 PM
I'm confused. Where in the first post of this thread citing the WDFW is there any kind of connection to wolves? If I missed something, please point me in the right direction. It appears that they just bought 432 acres of wintering ground that now can't become 5 to 20 acre home sites. Sounds like a pretty good idea. The loss of winter habitat is probably a bigger problem than all the other management policies we debate every day. This locked up more winter ground from development. And "Fish and Wildlife Service grant for the appraised value of $2,490,000, will also improve recreational opportunity and access to the wildlife area." Doesn't sound like they're trying to limit access or use. I'm at a loss for the downside here.
I'm with you, and jackalope, and michealJ. I think this is good, i don't see any connection to wolves.
Hopefully the WDFW will continue purchasing land in critical areas that is in jeopardy of development.
It was in The Wenatchee Daily World Newspaper!!! THATS MY WHOLE POINT!!!
Post by: hoytem on March 11, 2009, 02:11:49 PM
Post by: 7mag. on March 11, 2009, 02:20:01 PM
[/quote]
Amen brother
Post by: rasbo on March 11, 2009, 02:23:00 PM
we need hunting season to get here as soon as possible so we have something new to talk about.
Amen brother
[/quote]well we could scream at some dogs :drool:
Post by: luvtohnt on March 11, 2009, 02:39:14 PM
2 successful breeding pairs in the Northern Cascades Region, 8
2 successful breeding pairs in the Eastern Washington Region, and 9
2 successful breeding pairs in the Southern Cascades and Northwest Coast Region.
2. The gray wolf will be considered for downlisting from state threatened to sensitive in Washington when 12 successful breeding pairs are present for 3 consecutive years, distributed as follows:
2 successful breeding pairs in the Northern Cascades Region,
2 successful breeding pairs in the Eastern Washington Region,
5 successful breeding pairs in the Southern Cascades and Northwest Coast Region, and
3 successful breeding pairs anywhere in the state.
3. The gray wolf will be considered for delisting from state sensitive to game animal status in Washington when 15 successful breeding pairs are present for 3 consecutive years, distributed as follows:
2 successful breeding pairs in the Northern Cascades,
2 successful breeding pairs in the Eastern Washington Region,
5 successful breeding pairs in the Southern Cascades and Northwest Coast Region, and
6 successful breeding pairs anywhere in the state.
If 18 successful breeding pairs of wolves are documented in any year during the 3-year period, then WDFW will begin the process to delist at that point rather than wait for the 3-year period to conclude.
If we all do our part to document breeding pairs or packs with little ones we could have them classified as game animals in no time at all!!
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on March 11, 2009, 03:11:56 PM
I’d have done the same thing to protect winter range from becoming ranchettes! I call it a creative approach to protecting and enhancing mule deer winter range, it is just too bad that the only value USFWS sees in deer and elk is as ESA prey. That said, DON'T crap all over the guy for creatively using ESA recovery money from the federal government to perpetually protect big game winter range!!!!!
I, for one, applaud his dedication and creativity to do something positive for mule deer. I say a big thank you is in order, not a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. I hope to see thousands more acres of crucial habitat protected for "wolf prey" in Chelan and Okanogan counties with federal $$.
Post by: jackelope on March 11, 2009, 03:23:18 PM
Quote
I hope to see thousands more acres of crucial habitat protected for "wolf prey" in Chelan and Okanogan counties with federal $$.
me too...
Post by: WDFW-SUX on March 11, 2009, 03:25:06 PM
:chuckle:
They don't quit do they.
Post by: Gobble Gobble on March 11, 2009, 03:47:48 PM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on March 11, 2009, 03:48:54 PM
Quote
I could have swarn it was a big coyote
Thats my story and Im stickin to it. 8)
Post by: Curly on March 11, 2009, 03:49:19 PM
QuoteI hope to see thousands more acres of crucial habitat protected for "wolf prey" in Chelan and Okanogan counties with federal $$.
me too...
:yeah:
Post by: boneaddict on March 11, 2009, 04:19:47 PM
Post by: Slider on March 11, 2009, 04:25:50 PM
You want to know what is ironic. For those of you on here that recall my story about hitting a wolf in the forehead with a rock that killed a deer in front of me while shed hunting and there were dozens of dead deer laying around......was on that 423 acre parcel. ;) Of course that was back in 90 I think, and of course there were no wolves in Washington that time, especially no packs, or breeding pairs. :chuckle: Course the USFS biologists all knew about the pack in Libby at the time and instructed all to keep queit about it. :)
It's sensetive Mule Deer Winter Range now Bone? I quess the Wolves all left!!!.......LOL
Post by: Gobble Gobble on March 11, 2009, 04:32:33 PM
Post by: jackelope on March 11, 2009, 04:33:11 PM
Quote
I posted the story from the New's Paper and it was Nuked?
there's nothing in the recycle bin indicating anything was nuked....
Post by: Slider on March 11, 2009, 04:34:31 PM
Twisp deer habitat would fatten wolves too
Comments Mar 10, 2009 10:15 AM (1 day ago) AP
SEE HOW THIS STORY DEVELOPED EMAIL STORYPRINT STORY» 1 day ago: Twisp deer habitat would fatten wolves too «
This story ranks Not ranked
Related Topics: TWISP, Wash.
TWISP, Wash. (Map, News) - The 423 acres of mule deer habitat the state is buying near Twisp also will help a wolf pack in the area.
The Fish and Wildlife Department approved the $2.5 million purchase last week with funds from the federal Fish and Wildlife Service.
Biologist Scott Fitkin told The Wenatchee World a pack of at least eight wolves live in the area and would feed on the mule deer.
---
Information from: The Wenatchee World
Post by: boneaddict on March 11, 2009, 04:40:06 PM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on March 11, 2009, 04:51:05 PM
Post by: mulehunter on March 11, 2009, 07:42:03 PM
Mulehunter >:(
Post by: Thenewguy on March 11, 2009, 08:10:31 PM
Ok so maybe we're paranoid, but look at Idaho for example. They introduced a few packs and were supposed to maintain them and keep them at an acceptable level. Didn't happen!!Now they are absolutely out of control. I don't want to see the same mistakes made here.
Its not Idahos fault the FEDERAL courts put the wolves back on the endangered species list... Now that they are off that list again and the management of said wolf packs are supposed to be turned over to the State agencies, I think we'll be seeing tags in ID this fall along with a few in WA within 2-3 years. I've talked with Bio's for the WDFW and they want to manage our wolf populations properly, but they can't do it on a short budget with very little knowledge of our actual wolf packs. We're getting a lot better but we still need to report every incident that we see a wolf so we can convince the bios and WDFW that we have met our 'recovery goals' and can start managing them with tags and hunts...
I'm with Jackelope on this one, I think ur all paranoid and are just looking for reasons to crap on the WDFW... Thats just my .02 though...
Michael
They never give us reasons to doubt them do they?
Post by: hunt4 on March 11, 2009, 09:10:37 PM
AND MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR WASHINGTON
http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/gray_wolf/conservation_plan.pdf
I found this funny "NOT" this is in our states grey wolf plan
"Washington could conceivably develop a sizable wolf-related tourist industry, depending on where wolves reestablish, at what numbers, and their detectability."
Another twist TWISP AND TOURIST hmmm find any conection there?
Post by: boneaddict on March 12, 2009, 06:00:32 AM
Quote
Wonder how they got the funds....is that part of the stimulus package?Sorry Doublelung, I somehow missed your post. I agree. At least it keeps core range from being developed and it would in a heartbeat.
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on March 12, 2009, 10:12:42 AM
QuoteBiologist Scott Fitkin told The Wenatchee World a pack of at least eight wolves live in the area and would feed on the mule deer.
Hey Scott GO F*** yourself.
Why are you "killing the messenger"? He didn't introduce the wolves. He used them to secure mule deer habitat. I'd suggest you do as you suggest, but doubt that's possible with your head already apparently occupying your colon.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on March 12, 2009, 10:21:51 AM
kind of stupid to bitch about more land open to hunt IMO!!!!
Post by: hoytem on March 12, 2009, 10:32:38 AM
Post by: Colville on March 12, 2009, 11:52:27 AM
Opposing this purchase wouldn't slow or change the WA wolf plan one iota. They are separate. Wolf recovery may have been the reason used to make the acquisition, even the idea that wolf prey needs to be protected in order to feed them. However you can't restore wolves on 432 acres. That's like trying to restore Bull trout by securing 100 feet of a stream.
This purchase will in fact save winter habitat for mule deer. That's a good thing. The fact that in the future they may be wintering better to feed wolves can't be solved by opposing securing this land. It wold only speed along the rate at which deer populations become un-huntable. If we are worried about wolves hurting our hunting opportunities, we have to secure wintering habitat at every single opportunity.
If anything we should be pressing to "use" the needs of wolves to further the needs of mule deer and therefore of hunters. We should fight and oppose active wolf reintro plans everywhere we can but we're cutting our nose to spite our face if we complain about these purchases.
Post by: MichaelJ on March 12, 2009, 02:44:29 PM
Michael
Post by: Slider on March 12, 2009, 02:47:13 PM
Post by: MichaelJ on March 12, 2009, 02:51:11 PM
Michael
Post by: Cougeyes on March 12, 2009, 02:59:00 PM
you can't restore wolves on 432 acres. That's like trying to restore Bull trout by securing 100 feet of a stream.
You beat me to it, that's exactly what I was thinking. More land purchases mean more hunting opportunities and less rural development.
Post by: boneaddict on March 12, 2009, 03:06:57 PM
Quote
The WDFW district wildlife biologist got $2.5M of USFWS Section 6 money, earmarked by USFWS for wolf recovery, to acquire and perpetually protect 423 acres of mule deer winter range, and block up an inholding on the Methow WA. Best possible use of that $$ IMHO, it would have gone for something else stupid regarding wolf recovery if not spent on mule deer winter range. It aint pretty, but it is how you play the game. He has no ability to allocate how the USFWS spends Section 6 dollars, once allocated for “wolf recovery” – may as well do something useful for mule deer (a.k.a. “prey”).
I’d have done the same thing to protect winter range from becoming ranchettes! I call it a creative approach to protecting and enhancing mule deer winter range, it is just too bad that the only value USFWS sees in deer and elk is as ESA prey. That said, DON'T crap all over the guy for creatively using ESA recovery money from the federal government to perpetually protect big game winter range!!!!!
I, for one, applaud his dedication and creativity to do something positive for mule deer. I say a big thank you is in order, not a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. I hope to see thousands more acres of crucial habitat protected for "wolf prey" in Chelan and Okanogan counties with federal $$.
Post by: MichaelJ on March 12, 2009, 03:12:18 PM
No Michael, I doubt it. I think Doublelung sums up the real motive here, but what it will turn into is a buffet table.QuoteThe WDFW district wildlife biologist got $2.5M of USFWS Section 6 money, earmarked by USFWS for wolf recovery, to acquire and perpetually protect 423 acres of mule deer winter range, and block up an inholding on the Methow WA. Best possible use of that $$ IMHO, it would have gone for something else stupid regarding wolf recovery if not spent on mule deer winter range. It aint pretty, but it is how you play the game. He has no ability to allocate how the USFWS spends Section 6 dollars, once allocated for “wolf recovery” – may as well do something useful for mule deer (a.k.a. “prey”).
I’d have done the same thing to protect winter range from becoming ranchettes! I call it a creative approach to protecting and enhancing mule deer winter range, it is just too bad that the only value USFWS sees in deer and elk is as ESA prey. That said, DON'T crap all over the guy for creatively using ESA recovery money from the federal government to perpetually protect big game winter range!!!!!
I, for one, applaud his dedication and creativity to do something positive for mule deer. I say a big thank you is in order, not a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. I hope to see thousands more acres of crucial habitat protected for "wolf prey" in Chelan and Okanogan counties with federal $$.
Gotcha bone, on a different note; Isn't that buffet table inevitable? Even if the WDFW didn't purchase the land?
Michael
Post by: WDFW-SUX on March 12, 2009, 03:21:41 PM
Post by: boneaddict on March 12, 2009, 03:23:39 PM
Post by: Schmalzfam on March 19, 2009, 07:06:05 PM
Post by: boneaddict on March 19, 2009, 07:14:25 PM
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on March 20, 2009, 08:47:14 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on March 22, 2009, 01:06:43 PM
You know I find it very strange that this area is where the wolves are..in the sense that we hunted there last year. During our hunt last year we didn't see anything..well, 2 WT does and one muley doe. Yet, there was carcuses everywhere on the golden doe unit. We were saying to eachother..what happened? LAst year we saw 15 mule deer and some nice white tail..this year crap!! Can they actually cause that much damage in one season? Or was teh winter that bad?
Guess what killed this Kitty near Sun Valley
Post by: alanger on March 22, 2009, 01:19:35 PM
I’m having a hard time finding a downside to WDFW buying more land.
X2.
maybe i'm ignorant but are we inventing reasons to complain about the wdfw?
:yeah:
Post by: hoytem on March 22, 2009, 06:53:52 PM
Post by: boneaddict on March 22, 2009, 06:59:55 PM
Post by: hoytem on March 22, 2009, 07:06:19 PM
Post by: boneaddict on June 11, 2009, 09:02:57 AM
Post by: boneaddict on June 11, 2009, 09:37:42 AM
Cows may graze in wolf area
Cattlemen must take measures to limit conflict
By Joyce Campbell
Cattle and wolves are home on the range together in Okanogan County where ranchers and federal agencies have agreed to new conservation measures to reduce risks to livestock without adversely affecting the wolves.
Ranchers have turned out cattle on Forest Service grazing allotments in an area near Twisp where the state’s first gray wolf pack in 70 years is known to be denning.
Managers with the Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service developed and added eight conservation measures to three grazing allotment operating agreements on the Methow Valley Ranger District, according to a news release from the agencies on Monday (June 8). The measures are intended to reduce the potential for conflict between cattle and the Lookout Pack.
Ranchers agreed to the new conservation measures, which included “prohibiting human disturbance at den sites, removing injured livestock and delaying release of calves until they are larger and natural prey are more plentiful.” Dead livestock would be removed, destroyed by explosives or electrically fenced off if they would attract wolves to a potential conflict situation.
According to the new agreements, “In the event of depredation, wolf control actions… would not result in an adverse effect to the wolves. Cattle may be moved to another unit or another allotment.”
The Lookout Pack is known to be denning on the Libby allotment, where they raised six pups last year. Forest Service staff using radio-telemetry and ground tracking determined that the family of wolves was reduced to between three and five members by this spring, possibly due to natural dispersal, according to district biologist John Rohrer. Lone wolf sightings have increased recently in other parts of the valley, said Rohrer.
Poaching may also have reduced the pack. Evidence of poaching of two gray wolves allegedly by two Twisp-area ranchers is still under investigation by federal agents. No charges have been filed in the case, according to U.S. Attorney Tom Rice.
Researchers have been monitoring the wolves they named the Lookout Pack after capturing and radio-collaring a pair of adult wolves near Twisp in 2008. DNA analysis indicated that the pack is most closely related to British Columbia’s wolf populations.
The wolves have been tracked in the low elevation areas of the Libby, Poorman and Newby Creek grazing allotments as well as the higher elevations of the Twisp River Valley and the Chelan-Sawtooth Ridge.
“The wolves co-existed with cattle throughout the summer and there is no record of stock depredation by this pack,” according to the news release. If livestock depredation by a wolf should be confirmed, the conservation organization Defenders of Wildlife offers compensation to grazing permittees.
Wolves have been a federally- listed endangered species since 1974 and it is unlawful to kill or harass them.
Post by: Slider on June 11, 2009, 10:23:20 AM
Post by: wolfbait on June 11, 2009, 05:21:58 PM
Post by: boneaddict on June 11, 2009, 06:41:45 PM
Post by: Idabooner on June 11, 2009, 06:54:47 PM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on June 11, 2009, 06:57:12 PM
Post by: wolfbait on June 11, 2009, 07:04:42 PM
Post by: Idabooner on June 11, 2009, 08:27:03 PM
I have been expecting them to close hunting in the wolf area, they won't want a bunch of hunters running around in there. I also expect them to close coyotes in that area, of course the wolves will take care of the coyotes.
How have the deer sightings been over there Idabooner? I would not think they are showing themselves too much.
I've not been on the new wolf land this spring. I live right across the river from it so when the snow is on the ground I usually see lots of deer but this spring there were days of no deer, the most I seen at one time was 18. A week ago before the sun come up some thing pushed 7 does crossed the river at it's highest water, they were really spooked up. Seems like few deer on this side, I don't know if the wolves have crossed the river yet but they will as soon as there is more deer on this side.
Post by: Slider on June 11, 2009, 08:51:26 PM
Post by: wolfbait on June 12, 2009, 08:00:24 AM
Post by: Slider on June 14, 2009, 09:43:56 PM
There are very few deer on the new wolf range, some wolvse have been hitting the deer hard in Benson crick and Finally canyon lately and a fellow saw five up in bear crick last week above perigen lake. Slider, I heard through some channels that the game department wants to buy Booth and Davis canyon just the other side of the golden Doe. Rumur has it the rancher doesn't want to sell, can the feds emenatdomane it from him and pay what they wish? This rancher lost 16 head of cows last year, beleived to be from wolves, not of course beleived by wolf people,, as these new wolves mostly eat salmon.
The Wolves eat cattle?
Post by: wolfbait on June 15, 2009, 02:06:28 PM
Post by: denali on June 18, 2009, 09:59:18 AM
http://www.feinberg.northwestern.edu/nutrition/factsheets/copper.html
anything we can do to help wolf health i'm all for ;)
looks like "management" will be left to the pros = us :twocents:
Post by: wolfbait on June 18, 2009, 11:23:27 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 19, 2009, 08:17:10 AM
I don't know how they will explain such a large wolf population jump from just one wolf pack. This winter will really show how many wolves we now have. When whats left of our deer herd drops into the lowlands, with the wolves on their heels and the wolves start killing everyones livestock because there are not enough deer to feed them. How do you explain that many wolves from one pack? In reality we probably have our wolf quota right now for delisting.Why don't you find and document the #'s to move towards delisting? All it takes is the number of breeding pairs spread in the recovery zones. :dunno: Like you said, they're tame as housecats, so finding them should be a snap. Once that task is accomplished we can move to delisting and management.
Post by: WDFW-SUX on June 19, 2009, 08:21:46 AM
Quote
Once that task is accomplished we can move to delisting and management.
Then we an wade through 15 years of lawsuits and watch our wildlife disappear.
Post by: wolfbait on June 19, 2009, 08:39:28 AM
QuoteOnce that task is accomplished we can move to delisting and management.
Then we an wade through 15 years of lawsuits and watch our wildlife disappear.
Yep, I think the only way we can have any affect on the outcome of this is to let as many people know the true situation, the more people that get involved the better the chances of change there is. Over the years people have been brainwashed where the wolves are concerned, but if people can see all the devistation that they cause with no management well? Squeeky wheel gits the grease.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 19, 2009, 01:29:52 PM
I'm not sure that having a bunch of people riled up about wolves is going to do any good in moving towards management. The Wolf Management plan is what is going to determine population #'s and recovery goals. That draft is completed and headed towards Peer Review, It sounds like Giest will get to take a look and make whatever comments he feels necessary. What you could do to help is comment on the plan. If you actually wanted to help, gathering accurate population data is the best thing you could do.QuoteOnce that task is accomplished we can move to delisting and management.
Then we an wade through 15 years of lawsuits and watch our wildlife disappear.
Yep, I think the only way we can have any affect on the outcome of this is to let as many people know the true situation, the more people that get involved the better the chances of change there is. Over the years people have been brainwashed where the wolves are concerned, but if people can see all the devistation that they cause with no management well? Squeeky wheel gits the grease.
Why don't you push for some sort of study on deer mortality in the methow? Collar deer and follow to determine mortality? Then some data would back your claim that the wolves are eating all the deer. :twocents:
Post by: wolfbait on June 19, 2009, 06:16:40 PM
I'm not sure that having a bunch of people riled up about wolves is going to do any good in moving towards management. The Wolf Management plan is what is going to determine population #'s and recovery goals. That draft is completed and headed towards Peer Review, It sounds like Giest will get to take a look and make whatever comments he feels necessary. What you could do to help is comment on the plan. If you actually wanted to help, gathering accurate population data is the best thing you could do.QuoteOnce that task is accomplished we can move to delisting and management.
Then we an wade through 15 years of lawsuits and watch our wildlife disappear.
Yep, I think the only way we can have any affect on the outcome of this is to let as many people know the true situation, the more people that get involved the better the chances of change there is. Over the years people have been brainwashed where the wolves are concerned, but if people can see all the devistation that they cause with no management well? Squeeky wheel gits the grease.
Why don't you push for some sort of study on deer mortality in the methow? Collar deer and follow to determine mortality? Then some data would back your claim that the wolves are eating all the deer. :twocents:
Informing people on how the wolves are really effecting our game should help people to get involved and perhaps, encourage effective wolf management. Yep, First thing in the morning I'm going to saddle my best ropin' mule and see if I can't find some deer to rope and collar. Any special colored collar you have in mind? Should I send you the data, and how long before you want me to send the wolf chew data back to you? You and I could be colleagues, kind of like bad-cop good-cop.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 22, 2009, 07:42:28 AM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on June 22, 2009, 07:43:45 AM
Quote
In the end, the WDFW will be the ones making the decision.
Nope. The federal courts will be.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 22, 2009, 07:48:01 AM
Well, like ID and MT we should eventually be able to make the decision at a state level. We are getting a wolf management plan together and should be ready to take over responsibilty when the wolves are recovered. That's why we need to document animals and reproduction- we need to get to that stage in the process.QuoteIn the end, the WDFW will be the ones making the decision.
Nope. The federal courts will be.
Post by: wolfbait on June 22, 2009, 09:43:53 AM
Well, like ID and MT we should eventually be able to make the decision at a state level. We are getting a wolf management plan together and should be ready to take over responsibilty when the wolves are recovered. That's why we need to document animals and reproduction- we need to get to that stage in the process.QuoteIn the end, the WDFW will be the ones making the decision.
Nope. The federal courts will be.
It would seem from the history so far, the greenies and the USFW would just a soon not have the wolves delisted. They bought these wolves into this country for reasons of their own. There is poven facts it was not for the benifit of wolves in this country.
http://www.aws.vcn.com/fact.html
It's questionable how much actual benefit wolf recovery is for
wolves. We do know wolf recovery benefits the people who make money
off the animal. These are the special interest groups, biologists
and researchers who study and promote the animal -- often at great
taxpayer expense. Further, there are those who use endangered
species as a surrogate for personal agendas such as anti-hunting and
land control. There's also a conflict of interest involved: "Those
who write recovery plans for wolves and other endangered species,
choose the alternatives, conduct and edit the science, edit the
comments and make all the decisions, are the same ones who benefit
directly from their own contrived determinations."
Wildlife management is an art science, not a specific science. A
specific science is something that is specific and can be tested,
tested and re-tested with the same results every time. Chemistry is
an example. A chemist can mix one element with another element and
get a certain and definite reaction every time. That is specific.
Wildlife management is an art science in that there are so many
variables that two biologists can look at the same studies and come
up with different conclusions. Quite often wolf biologists do not
agree with each other in their studies about wolves.
This is the very reason for the need to review history. History
helps biology and wildlife management become realistic.
For more information, contact:
ABUNDANT WILDLIFE SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA
PO Box 2
Beresford, SD 57004
(605) 751 - 0979
Wolves kill pigs and sheep- goats and lamas- horses- cattle and dogs;
also people when wolves are not hunted. Wolves in Idaho have not been hunted since 1995, for over ten years.
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=344456&page=6
Post by: bearpaw on June 22, 2009, 03:19:16 PM
Quote
as these new wolves mostly eat salmon.
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :bash:
Post by: Gringo31 on June 22, 2009, 06:46:43 PM
Why would 400+ acres in Twisp sell for $5886/acre which is more than most farm ground goes for WITH WATER RIGHTS!
I'm thinking I would LOVE to sell land to WDFW.
Post by: hoytem on June 27, 2009, 11:57:07 AM
I was waiting for someone to do the math....
Why would 400+ acres in Twisp sell for $5886/acre which is more than most farm ground goes for WITH WATER RIGHTS!
I'm thinking I would LOVE to sell land to WDFW.
when it's federal money you can name almost whatever price you want. especially now that when it comes to money numbers don't mean anything.
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on June 27, 2009, 12:25:22 PM
I do think there is some chance wolf impacts on migratory mule deer won't be as severe as we think in the Methow and east Cascades (valley floor resident deer are probably toast though). Mainly due to habitat reasons, not politics or management. I do think, though, that the Colockum and Yakima elk herds will be POUNDED by wolves. We'll still be allowed to hunt spikes, maybe - but there will be damned little harvest once the wolves populate, as the calves will take a real beating. You can forget about antlerless elk opportunties for anyone in those herds. Likewise, branched bull permits will decline as calf survival drops. Eventually, between wolves and habitat loss, we will lose general license hunting opportunities for deer and elk in eastern WA; the areas where wolves aren't dominating the big game kill, won't be able to take the pressure of unlimited hunter numbers and a declining habitat base.
I think mule deer in the gentler, rolling ponderosa pine hills of the Okanogan Highlands, including much of Ferry and Stevens counties are pretty much toast, over time wolves will drastically reduce them. Whitetails will do better. The only hope for management I see there - DON'T LAUGH, I'M SERIOUS! - is that once delisting occurs, the Colvilles will thump brother wolf pretty effectively on the CIR and the north half when it gets harder to kill mule deer.
I don't think the same can be said for the Yakamas inthe East Cascades; road closures and topography will prevent them from effectively killing wolves; though they'll get some, especially when elk get hard to kill.
Post by: Slider on June 27, 2009, 02:42:37 PM